John Cena: First ballot Wrestling Observer HOF'er

[Warner2BruceTD]

WCW in GENERAL wasn't a big time draw on par with WWF outside of mid-96 to very early 99.

This statement hurst Sting more than it helps him. This shows he wasn't as popular as we perceive him to be. WCW couldn't move the needle until Hogan showed up.

At the beginning, he was out for a while. Then he was a big deal. Then they fumbled him and lost footing until Goldberg gave them one last hurrah. That's the problem with buys and "draws". I'm not comfortable downgrading Sting because WCW screwed him up, then upgrading someone else because they simply got in the ring with Austin on PPV when he was the hottest selling thing on earth.

I agree there were people who rode Austin's coattail.

Forget WWE for a second. Where is the evidence, outside 1997, that Sting was a better draw in WCW than his WCW peers?

 

[s@ppisgod]

WCW was firmly on top in rating in 97 with Sting as the main attraction. Starrcade 97 was the biggest buyrate WCW ever had.

I'm not playing what-if with Sting. I'm saying that when Hart and HBK were at the top in the mid-90's, their PPV buyrates BY WWE STANDARDS, weren't great. Their business almost went belly-up with Hart at the top, I believe. And I say that as a huge Hart fan. But there's so many underlying elements that you can't point to one number as a be-all, end-all.

 

[s@ppisgod]

I don't think we're far off here.

I don't thin the first point you mentioned "hurts" Sting because the WWF had a huge head-start as a nation-wide promotion and THE top dog. Him not being as big of a deal as Hogan, enough to make up the difference, isn't a huge mark against him IMO. Mainly because Hulk Hogan in 94 was still Hulk freakin Hogan at the time.

I don't think he moved the needle more than his peers in WCW. I also think you could say the same about HBK and Hart, and that makes them no less HOFers in my book by any standard of any credible wrestling associated group.

You will almost never convince me Foley was a draw. He was never the top guy in the WWF, belt or not. He was a likable guy, post-Mankind. But there's no way that a large amount of people came to see Mick Foley. I like Foley, and find him very entertaining. But WWF sold tickets based on Austin, Rock, DX. I'd argue the same for UT, to a lesser degree.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Again, nobody is denying that Sting was the fucking man in 1997. It was a weird dynamic, but that doesn't matter, it is what it is. But it was only one year out of 20+ that he was a true top guy. The perception is different.

The year he headlined the highest percentage of PPV's in his career (1993) was the worst year WCW ever had until the very end when they became a total joke.

He got the ball in 1990, and business plummeted from a very solid Flair led 1989, and they went right back with Flair a few months later.

In 1998, Goldberg got hot and surpassed everybody in WCW, and was neck & neck with Austin briefly, which shatters this idea that WCW was never on equal footing. Hogan, Goldberg, and to a lesser extent Flair, NWO, Savage all were able to raise WCW to WWE levels, something Sting did ONE year out of now going on nearly 30 in his career, lol.

We can quibble about Sting vs Hart & HBK as draws, but it's a waste of time because Hart & HBK are all time elite workers and are in the hall of fame based on that more than anything else.

Let's remember that I lean yes on Sting. But honestly, I don't know why. I am probably guilty of being wrapped up in perception and what I thought was true as a kid. If you asked me to formulate an argument for my yes vote, I have a hard time doing it. Ask me to do it without mentioning the year 1997, and i've got virtually nothing.

There are dozens of guys who have Sting's longevity on or near the top who arent in. There are dozens of guys who drew more who arent in. I'm far more offended that somebody like Kensuke Sasaki or Dr Warner Sr or Pedro Morales isn't in. All drew circles around Sting, all are better or comparable workers, all hd similar longevity on top, etc.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Also, I should note that Michaels did not make it on his first try and was a very controversial pick at the time. Seems crazy now, but that was before the two Undertaker matches, etc.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

One more point, lol

I was equally baffled years ago when Sting not only wasn't in, but never really even comes close in the voting. Dumbfounded. But then when you look at the criteria, and the evidence, it starts to make sense.

 

[s@ppisgod]

Again, nobody is denying that Sting was the fucking man in 1997. It was a weird dynamic, but that doesn't matter, it is what it is. But it was only one year out of 20+ that he was a true top guy. The perception is different.

The year he headlined the highest percentage of PPV's in his career (1993) was the worst year WCW ever had until the very end when they became a total joke.

He got the ball in 1990, and business plummeted from a very solid Flair led 1989, and they went right back with Flair a few months later.

In 1998, Goldberg got hot and surpassed everybody in WCW, and was neck & neck with Austin briefly, which shatters this idea that WCW was never on equal footing. Hogan, Goldberg, and to a lesser extent Flair, NWO, Savage all were able to raise WCW to WWE levels, something Sting did ONE year out of now going on nearly 30 in his career, lol.

We can quibble about Sting vs Hart & HBK as draws, but it's a waste of time because Hart & HBK are all time elite workers and are in the hall of fame based on that more than anything else.

Let's remember that I lean yes on Sting. But honestly, I don't know why. I am probably guilty of being wrapped up in perception and what I thought was true as a kid. If you asked me to formulate an argument for my yes vote, I have a hard time doing it. Ask me to do it without mentioning the year 1997, and i've got virtually nothing.

There are dozens of guys who have Sting's longevity on or near the top who arent in. There are dozens of guys who drew more who arent in. I'm far more offended that somebody like Kensuke Sasaki or Dr Warner Sr or Pedro Morales isn't in. All drew circles around Sting, all are better or comparable workers, all hd similar longevity on top, etc.

WCW was on equal ground in 98. They weren't in the early 90's


HBK/Hart are great workers. But them not being huge draws in the mid-90's doesn't hurt them IMO. Again, it's a situation with 1,000 different variables. What I'm saying is they are HOFers regardless of what they drew. I think the same of Sting. I'll never argue that he was as good as HBK/Hart in the ring, he clearly wasn't. But I do think his whole body of work is worthy.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

WCW was on equal ground in 98. They weren't in the early 90's

But isnt this more of an indictment of Sting, than something in his favor? Other people were able to do what he couldn't later on. And WWF was certainly vulnerable during that period.

HBK/Hart are great workers. But them not being huge draws in the mid-90's doesn't hurt them IMO. Again, it's a situation with 1,000 different variables. What I'm saying is they are HOFers regardless of what they drew. I think the same of Sting. I'll never argue that he was as good as HBK/Hart in the ring, he clearly wasn't. But I do think his whole body of work is worthy.

Here's the thing - I agree. Except as I said, if you ask me to explain why I think he is, I can't tell you! Lol. I just "feel" like he is. Which is why I cant go all in when it comes to Sting. My memories and my heart say yes, but my brain says there just isn't enough tangible evidence to put him over the top. Especially when people like Morales, Sasaki, Carlos Colon, etc who drew far bigger money aren't in.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

The fact that they put so much writing into fragmenting Sting's qualifications for the Hall of Fame show they are trying too hard, IMO.

RE: "The Numbers of Drawing"...while I was trolling a bit for the sake of arguing the Austin debate in the wrestling thread, I do firmly believe the way they traditionally quantify what is considered a "draw" on the National scale of wrestling is silly. For example, Sting would never show up in your traditional "who drew the most gates" in any given year, because he never worked house shows, especially later in his career. And they way they quantify the "main event" not only NOW, but even in the 90's...it starts to get silly as television became more popular and the structure of a show started to vary in the late 80's. The way the develop the Sting argument looks like they are trying way too hard to skew the "numbers" to their side.

Another example...1992, a year where I would consider Sting to be at the top of the WCW card...they give credit to 2 of 5 pay per views "main eventing"...I'll even expand this discussion to Clash events...there were 10 events and Sting was the featured match in 8 of the cards. WCW had been given over to Bill Watts and they were in developing different formats for their shows. It wasn't uncommon for the title match to be in the middle of the card.

-Clash 18 -> Tag Match w/ Steamboat v. Dangerous Alliance.
-Superbrawl II -> v. Luger for the Title.
WrestleWar 92 -> War Games
Clash 19 -> Not On Card
Beach Blast 92 -> v. Foley for the Title.
Great American Bash 92 -> v. Vader for the Title.
Clash 20 -> Elmination Tag Match.
Halloween Havoc -> v. Jake Roberts.
Clash 21 -> King of Cable Semis v. Rude.
Starrcade -> King of Cable Finals v. Vader.

There is two caveats here...I think it is extremely obvious that Sting was their guy and he was the featured guy throughout the entire year...however, on the flip side, business for WCW was bad...

89/90...89 was the year Sting went from mid-card to the top...of the 10 events, Sting was the featured match in 5 of them (3 of 4 cards in the final quarter)...in 90, he was in the featured match all year. Now, I'm not going to give Sting the credit for business...as Flair was the "top" guy and was a heel, but Sting was the top face and was at the top all year. Havoc 90 did the second highest Havoc buyrate ever, against Sid. Bash 90 did the third highest buyrate when he won the world title. In "WCW's Big Event" Starrcade, Sting was in the main event for four of the top six highest buyrate Starrcade events, including the highest buyrate WCW ever got.

Listen, I'm not saying Sting is on par with the top tier of guys...but the boys at the Observer are grossly underrating him and skewing numbers to boot...see, I just did it myself in Sting's favor.

 

[s@ppisgod]

Because WCW, while a quick riser, wasn't an overnight success. They built with Hogan, with Nitro, with the NWO, and dominating 97. All of it laid the groundwork for them to put up the crazy numbers they did in 98. Goldberg put it over the top. t if you're only putting guys in the HOF who directly caused huge bumps in business, that's going to be a really small Hall.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

And, Sting has a lot of really really good matches for an average worker.

 

[ThomasTomasz]

Just a question out of curiosity, how can Cena get it on the first try, but Jeff Hardy is removed from the ballot for receiving less than 10%. Doesn't seem right to me, though I am not saying that Hardy is the GOAT or anything along those lines. If anything, more of an indictment for Cena.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

It should be noted that during the three year period that Sting was working house shows on top, and Flair was gone (91-93) , WCW was averaging something like 1500 per show. To put that on perspective, ROH draws that on NYC several tomes per year.

Those were also the worst years for WCW until the very end when they basically gave up. Particularly 1993.

Also, all of those quotes are big Dave, I figured you wouldnt want to be bothered with random geeks. These threads are awesome and always like 20 pages long. Sting brings the controversy.

I dont think Sting was a terrible draw, but he wasnt nearly as popular as we remember him being.

Push =/= popularity

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Because WCW, while a quick riser, wasn't an overnight success. They built with Hogan, with Nitro, with the NWO, and dominating 97. All of it laid the groundwork for them to put up the crazy numbers they did in 98. Goldberg put it over the top. t if you're only putting guys in the HOF who directly caused huge bumps in business, that's going to be a really small Hall.

That's not the case. Goldberg isnt in and never will be, for example. No longevity. There are also many people in the hall who never drew a dime, based on workrate.

Elite draws get in. Elite workers get in. Elite draws who were elite workers obviously get in. Sting is none of the above and that is why he is so divisive.

Just a question out of curiosity, how can Cena get it on the first try, but Jeff Hardy is removed from the ballot for receiving less than 10%. Doesn't seem right to me, though I am not saying that Hardy is the GOAT or anything along those lines. If anything, more of an indictment for Cena.

It was the first year on the ballot for both. Anybody who falls below 10% gets dropped from the ballot. They can can back later if enough people make a case for them, or if their career advances and there is new body of work to consider.

As long as you stay over 10%, you stay on the ballot. That's why people like Curt Hennig, Owen Hart, etc have stayed on for so many years, at that 20-40% level, yet will never get in.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

And, Sting has a lot of really really good matches for an average worker.

Agreed. People are too hard on his work. He's a lot like Cena in that regard.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

It should be noted that during the three year period that Sting was working house shows on top, and Flair was gone (91-93) , WCW was averaging something like 1500 per show. To put that on perspective, ROH draws that on NYC several tomes per year.

Those were also the worst years for WCW until the very end when they basically gave up. Particularly 1993.

Also, all of those quotes are big Dave, I figured you wouldnt want to be bothered with random geeks. These threads are awesome and always like 20 pages long. Sting brings the controversy.

I dont think Sting was a terrible draw, but he wasnt nearly as popular as we remember him being.

Push =/= popularity

While I agree with the bold...I don't think quantifiable "drawing" = "popularity" either. Certainly a draw is popular...but not all popular wrestlers are "draws". So much more goes into "drawing" than simply being a name. For example from 91-93, in Flair's steed, booking was also shit as well and as mentioned in a moment, the WWF's ratings and buyrates were on a sharp decline.

Sting at the top in 90 and even 91 was popping good buyrates for PPVs and ratings for Clash events. 91 was down from 90, but still respectable enough numbers. 92 and 93 were the drizzling shits, however...WWF was also experiencing a decline in numbers in 92 and subsequently 93 as well. As we discussed in the Austin discussion...there is a certain ebb and flow to the business as a whole...the early and into the mid 90's where a downturn for the entire business in the U.S. Sting was the top guy for WCW (and when you were being pushed for what was rough 2.5 years, its no longer a "push"...you're the top guy) during a bad period for business, but it business was declining for everyone.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Agreed. People are too hard on his work. He's a lot like Cena in that regard.

My issue with Cena is this...once the WWF/E purchased WCW and became this monster entity of "Sports Entertainment"...calling anyone a "draw" is silly...the company draws, not an individual.

It is kind of like calling Peyton Manning or Tom Brady a "bigger draw" than Joe Namath or Dan Marino.

With that said...Cena and Sting are very comparable in-ring. Both have some real stinkers on their resume...both have some legitimate gems and all-time great matches.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Let me defend my ten picks, and explain why i'm not so sure on the other ten, and then you guys can tell me why i'm an idiot if you disagree (which undoubtedly you will, because nobody agrees on this shit)

Who I would have voted for (I don't know a lot about some of the pre-1970's historical figures):

John Cena - Honestly it's hard to take anybody seriously who would vote no. The top guy in the top company for nearly a decade. Maybe the top merch pusher ever. Better worker than given credit for. Tireless worker who is an amazing ambassador for the business (all time Make-a-Wish leader, not for westling, but for anybody). Main evented top grossing wrestling show of all time. No brainer choice.

Kensuke Sasaki - 20+ years on top. Only man to hold all three top Japanese world titles (IWGP, GHC, & Triple Crown), in an environment where that still matters. Headlined multiple Tokyo Dome main events that drew 60,000+. Too many legendary matches to name. One of the most respected trainers in the world. Killed a trainee by accident, possibly costing him votes. Nobody knows what really happened, most assume it to be accidental.

Carlos Colon - Top draw in Puerto Rico for 20+ years. THE star, drew monster gates for two decades against a revolvning door of heels like Abdullah, Flair, Ivader I, Brody, etc. Has possibly drawn more money than any man not currently in hall. Would probably have been in years ago if not for the Brody murder that happened on his watch and many feel he helped cover up.

Bill Apter - My mind is blown on this one. Who was more influential than Apter? If Apter decided to make you a star, he did (Sting, Luger, Sabu, Kerry Von Erich, Tommy Rich, Road Warriors etc etc). Who didn't read the Apter mags if you were of that age? To this day, wrestlers pay to be included in the PWI 500. During their heyday, the Apter mags helped every promoter in the country draw money. Apter was better at making stars than half the promoters.

Rock & Roll Express - They may not have invented the looooong tag team heat spot & hot tag, but they perfected it. R&R matches laid the groundwork for nearly every tag team match that took place from 1984-the present. With the exception of the Road Warriors and maybe one or two others, probably the most influential tag team ever, especially in terms of knock offs. Awesome draws in multiple territories, and legendary matches against the Midnight Express and others.

Jerry Jarrett - Memphis was the last territory to die, lasting well into the late 90's. Jarrett was a cheap payoff man which probably hurts him, and he also failed his last attempt to promote, with the weekly PPV Nashville days of TNA. But I can't ignore decades of Memphis being a top territory and the fact that he is one of the best bookers of all time.

Hiroshi Tanahashi - Has a lot of career ahead of him, but i'd put him in right now. Best wrestler in the world, without question. Smack dab in the midst of becoming a certified legendary figure. New Japan was on its death bed, and on his back has slowly crawled out and is now to the point that they are probably the #2 promotion in the world today. He will get in eventually, that's a lock. Why fuck around, i'd do it now.

Fabulous Moolah - Again, influence. She controlled all the top women wrestlers from the end of the Billy White Wolf era until national expansion took over. Not as big of a star as she is perceived to be (thanks to her Hulkamania era run), but a big enough star that it helps her case, and a key WWE heel during the early days of the expansion.

Don Owen - This is a disgrace. Same reasons as Jarrett. Portland lasted until the late 90's and his TV was the longest running wrestling show in US history. I'm baffled. One of the best promoters ever.

Pedro Morales - Big time ethnic draw between the two Bruno runs in the WWWF. Sold out MSG many many times. Long term drawing champion in the days when if you didn't draw, you were replaced. Jobber to the stars run in the mid 80's probably hurts him in the eyes of younger voters.






On the fence:

Jesse Ventura - Wrestling career doesnt stack up, but a key figure in a hot WWF period. Obviously famous outside wrestling. Always comes up five or so votes short. I lean yes.

LA Park - Not yet.

Sting - see thread

Edge - Can't shake the idea he was just a cog in the machine.

Gorilla Monsoon - Fondly remembered if you are under 40, but considered a terrible announcer by people at the time. I lean yes, when you factor in a borderline HOF wrestling career, influence as a part owner of both WWF & WWC, etc.

Blue Panther - Upper mid card heel for many years, top level worker. Never a true tippy top headliner, even after face turn. Honestly I need more information.

Jimmy Snuka - Again, never THE guy, but a key guy early on in WWF expansion, good All Japan runs, etc. But flopped in AWA when pushed as the star. Surpassed by Hogan and others and became a secondary figure. WWF didnt miss a beat without him.

Sgt Slaughter - Top draw in Carolinas, WWF, other places, could go in his day, very famous, perhaps the most famous non WWF wrestler of his era. Maybe second to Hogan, period (apologies to Piper & Andre). That's amazing considering he was in the dying AWA. I lean yes, but can see the no side (flopped in AWA, but it may have been impossible not to by then, and he went back to WWF and was a top star who did draw as a heel).

Vampiro - Huge draw in Mexico in the early 90's, but no longevity. Flopped in the U.S.

Curt Hennig - Great worker, top guy, but never really a draw. On top of AWA right before the really big decline, but his title run was nothing special at the gate. His house show run with Hogan in '89 was the worst drawing Hogan program to that point. If Sting isn't in, he can't be either, unless you think he deserves to be as a worker. My favorite wrestler ever, but I have to be fair. He comes up short.

Batista - I lean strongly no. Very good draw, particularly the Triple H feud. Neck & neck with Cena at times. But no longevity. Just another guy towards the end of his run. Not a great worker. Mediocre, actually.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

My issue with Cena is this...once the WWF/E purchased WCW and became this monster entity of "Sports Entertainment"...calling anyone a "draw" is silly...the company draws, not an individual.

It is kind of like calling Peyton Manning or Tom Brady a "bigger draw" than Joe Namath or Dan Marino.

While I tend to agree with this, there is a reason Cena will always be a RAW guy, there is a reason Vince rushes Cena back from injuries, and doesn't want him taking too much time off.

House shows with Cena do better business, he sells the most merch, and his segments move TV ratings. RAW house shows outdraw SmackDown house shows, and it would reverse if he switched.

If Cena quit tomorrow, the house of cards would not collapse, but certain things would dip. He's not Hogan or Austin or Rock or Bruno but he's the next tier and means more than Orton, Punk, Big Show, Misterio,etc.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I have zero issue with anyone of your "YES" choices...

Of the choices you were fence'd on...

Ventura is a very very interesting case. As a wrestler and draw alone...probably not, but his work far exceeds what went on when then lights were on. I'd say yes. The man went into political office for the most part, based on him being THE BODY. Linda McMahon could learn a thing or two about winning an election from Jesse.

LA Park...if I voted right now, the answer is no.

Sting...Yup.

Edge...if Cena is first ballot...and you give Batista the loads of credit you give him in your little write up (even with your strong-no vote)...Edge is in eventually...I put him over Batista easily.

Gorilla...Obvious yes for a multitude reasons.

Blue Panther...he falls in that same tier as guys like Hennig and Owen.

Jimmy Snuka...more popular and revered in the WWF bubble than he really was. I'd vote no.

Sgt. Slaughter...emphatic yes. Insanely popular. So much so, Sarge has a spot in the new GI Joe movie...you laugh, but it gives you an idea of how popular and iconic he was. I would bet cash-money he sold more action figures than anyone in the history of wrestling.

Vampiro...no.

Perfect...I want to say yes, because I like him.

Batista...Not even close.